

// 



/ 



i(y. 



L^o--l:<i^a^/i tyT^cpCjL^i^ 




Qass. 
Book- 



IH c 



C'^^e' ,r;i<x5.,.,>.^/^/... 



/■ 




// 






y*-' 



CORRESPONDENCE 

IN RELATION TO THE :- / ^ /^«) 



v-^ 



CAPTURE OF THE BRITISH BRIGS 



DETROIT AND CALEDONIA. 



ON THE NIGHT OF OCTOBER 8, 1812. 



NOW FIRST PUBLISHED. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

UNITED STATES BOOK AND JOB PRINTING OFFICE, LEDGER BUILDING. 

1843. 










,- Vf "^'^' -^ *^"*~* ^ '^'^ 



b, . , ' O ^ r J 



CORRESPONDENCE 



IN RELATION TO THE 



CAPTURE OF THE BRITISH BRIGS 

DETROIT AND CALEDONIA, 



ON THE NIGHT OF OCTOBER 8, 1812. 



NOW FIRST PUBLISHED. 



PHILADELPHIA; 

U.\IT1:D r^TATErf BOOK AND JOB PRINTING OFFICE, LKDGEU BUILDING. 

1843. 



,. et 






\2^n^ I 



^ 



^6*2^ 



• • • 



• • • < • 4 



PREFATORY REMARKS. 



The following correspondence never having heen laid fully 
and connectedly before the public, and the whole matter having 
been of late brought into renewed controversy by recent public 
discussions, I have thought it desirable that the affair should 
be clearly and definitively understood. No new ground has 
been taken, nor is any new hostility toward, or fresh imputa- 
tion upon any person intended by the present publication : 
the sole object of which is purely explanatory. It furnishes 
both the text and the commentary. 

J. D. ELLIOTT. 

West Chester, May Gth, 1843. 



21 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Washington City, July G, 1S35. 
To Com/modere J. D. Elliott : 

Sir — My attention was called to the enclosed article, which had been cut 
out of the Boston Courier and sent to a friend of mine in this place, with a 
request that he would obtain from me a statement of the services performed by 
the artillery under my command, in the capture of the brigs Detroit and Cale- 
donia, and of the circumstances under wliich the latter was saved from being 
burnt to prevent recapture. I understood the information was wanted for pub- 
lication, to correct what was believed to be erroneous in the article that appeared 
in the Courier, and to claim for the army whatever credit it was entitled to for 
that affair. On reflection, I thought that if such publication was made, it should 
be done by me, and under my name ; and on further consideration, I concluded 
to make it; but before my statement was prepared, I noticed several paragraphs 
in the public prints relating to you, altogether of an unfriendly character ; and 
I thought that a publication, at that time, contradicting the article in the Courier, 
which was intended to do you honor, would have the appearance of taking an 
unfair advantage of the feeling produced by these paragraphs. Tliis, together 
with the important fact that you were then absent from the country, determined 
me to postpone it. Your return to the United States moves the objection soon • 
than I anticipated. It occurs to me, however, that it will be most agreeable .i 
you to make the corrections yourself, and to give my command the credit to 
which it is entitled. The object of this communication is, therefore, to ascer- 
tain from you which course you would prefer. 

Your official report, dated October 9th, 1812, the day on which the capture 
was made, gives but an imperfect account of the boarding of the Caledonia, and 
says nothing about the subsequent preservation of that vessel under circum- 
stances similar to those wliich induced you to cause the Detroit to be burnt. 
Your report says : 

" By 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I had my men in two boats, wliich I had pre- 
viously prepared for the purpose. With these boats, fifty men in each, and 
under circumstances very disadvantageous ; my men having scarcely had time 
to refresh themselves after a fatiguing march of live hundred miles, I put off 
from the mouth of Buffalo Creek at 1 o'clock the following morning, and at 
.3 o'clock I was alongside the vessels. In the space of ten minutes I had the 
prisoners secured, the topsails sheeted home and the vessels underway." 

From tliis, as well as from the statement in the Courier, it would appear that 
the vessels must have been anchored close together ; that they were boarded at 
the same time under your superintendence and immediate orders, and that the 
part performed by the volunteers from the army, was not sufficiently important 
to be particularly noticed. Whereas, you will recollect that the night was dark, 
and that the boats separated immediately after leaving Buffalo Creek, and did 



6 

not see nor communicate with each other after that time ; and you will also 
recollect that the Caledonia lay nearest the Fort, and to approach her, the boat 
commanded by Mr. Watts must pass the Detroit. As we passed, we were 
hailed and questioned, but not otherwise interrupted. At this time we indis- 
tinctly saw the Caledonia, and Mr. Watts expressed strong doubts about our 
being able to reach iier on account of the current, and censured the pilot for 
having brought the boat nearer in shore. The pilot insisted on the practica- 
bility of reacliing the brig, notwithstanding the current and the time lost in 
hesitating about malting the attempt. It then became necessary, to prevent an 
abandonment of the enterprize, so far as we were concerned, that I should take 
the responsibility and command. We reached the brig with difficulty, and 
under disadvantageous circumstances. After a sharp conflict, we succeeded in 
carrying her with a loss, on our part, of two killed and thirteen wounded. 
Your official report mentions but one killed and four wounded ; but that was 
confined to seamen. You had no return of my command, which consisted of 
twenty nine artillerists ; of whom one was killed and nine wounded ; making 
the aggregate as stated. 

After mentioning the circumstances which compelled you to anchor the 
Detroit under the fire of the enemy, and the impracticability of getting her into 
harbo", you give the particulars- of your landing and of the enemy's boarding 
with forty soldiers, and then being compelled to leave her " v. ith the loss of 
nearly all his men;" but you do not mention burning the brig to prevent sub- 
sequent recapture. 

In speaking of the other vessel, you say, " The Caledonia had been beached 
in as safe a position as the circumstances would admit of, under one of our bat- 
teries at Black Rock." There was no selection of place in " beacliing" 
the Caledonia ; she grounded in the Niagara river, opposite two of the 
enemy's batteries, wliich kept up a fire on her at intervals throughout the 
day. About the time you left the Detroit, Mr. Watts left the Caledonia, with 
the prisoners taken in her, and did not return. I remained on board with my 
command, and notwithstanding the fire of the enemy, succeeded in getting the 
brig afloat by landing part of her cargo. If Mr. Watts, or the seamen, had 
remained or returned after the cargo was landed, we should have been able to 
have brought the vessel into port ; but for want of nautical skill, I could only 
succeed in bringing her nearer the shore, and into a safer position, before she 
again got aground. 

About dusk a seaman came on board with combustibles, and stated that you 
had sent Mm with instructions to burn the brig ; that you were informed the 
enemy had crossed the river below, and was marching to attack Black Rock ; 
that the troops were leaving the Rock to join the main body, under General 
Smyth ; and that unless the brigs were burnt, they would be recaptured. At 
this time the Detroit was on fire. As I did not believe the enemy intended to 
attack, and that if he 'iid, it would be soon enough to burn the brig when it was 
found he could not be repulsed, I would not permit your order to be executed. 
The report of the enemy's movements proved to be incorrect, and the Caledonia 
was saved. 

You will probably ask why, if your official report was considered incorrect, 
or not sufficiently particular in its details, it was not mentioned to you at the 
time, and why it has been permitted to remain thus long without explanation 
or cc-rection ? The answer, so far as I am concerned, is that the day ibllowing 
the date of your repoi-t. Mr. Watts called on me, as he said, by your direction, 



to request me to furnish you my statement, which you wished to have before 
you sent your report to Washington. I replied that I was bound to report to 
my superior officer, then Lieut. Col. Scott, and that I could not communicate 
officially with you on the subject without disrespect to him. Having thus de- 
clined to furnish you my statement of the facts, I had no right to complain of 
the omissions in your report ; as you could have had no personal knowledge of 
some of the most important circumstances connected with the capture of the 
Caledonia. 

I have been frequently advised to make a statement of the circumstances in 
the journals of the day ; but it appeared to be a small matter, not su'ficiently 
important to interest the public, and so far as relates to ourselves, that ^iew was 
probably correct ; but as attention has recently been called to the subjeet by the 
article in the Courier, I-can no longer remain silent, v/ithout neglectir^ a duty 
I owe to those who acted with me. I feel the obligation more forcibly since 
the death of the lamented and gallant Captain Schenck, the only officer who 
shared with me the duty of making the statement and the responsibility of de- 
laying it. 

You are unquestionably entitled to all the credit due for planning the enter- 
prize, and for commanding, in person, the party that boarded the Detroit ; but, 
in every thing relating to the Caledonia, the brig first captured, you had no 
other agency than that of suggesting the plan and furnishing the boat and sea- 
men that boarded her. Although but a merchant vessel, she made a gallant 
and desperate resistance, and it was not until we had two men killed and thir- 
teen wounded, (two mortally.) that she was captured, while the Detroit per- 
mitted you to get alongside before you were discovered, and to board her almost 
without resistance. 

I have always thought it strange that the Detroit, a British vessel of war lay- 
ing near an enemy, should have been captured by surprise, more especially as 
she must have known, from the firing of the Caledonia, the hostile character of 
the boat she had just hailed. It was certainly fortunate for us that the person 
in command was a provincial, and not a regular officer of the British Navy, as 
I had, until lately, believed. 

As to the preservation of the Caledonia after capture, you will recollect that 
she, as well as the Detroit, was exposed through the day to the enemy's fire ; 
that about the time you quitted the latter, and the British got temporary possession 
of her, Mr. Watts left the former, taking with him the seamen and prisoners, 
while my detachment remained on board, landed part of the cargo and got the 
brig near in shore. You will also recollect you determined the Caledonia should 
be burnt as well as the Detroit, to prevent recapture ; but that the person you 
sent was not permitted to execute your order, and that the brig t; us saved 
formed part of that gallant fleet that achieved the glorious and important victory 
on Lake Erie. 

You will oblige me by letting me hear from you as soon after the receipt of 
this as your convenience will permit. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant,- 

N. TOY'^SON. 



To the Editor of the Courier : 

The pen qualifies the sword, and the sword protects the pen ; when both ai-e 
wisely united, they constitute civilization ; when separated, they mark a state 



8 

of savage life. The fame of Washington would fade away into fable were it 
not for the pen. The renown of Moses and Joshua, and David and Solomon, 
would not have reached us, had it not been borne on the wings of literature ; 
but would have come down to us like the fame of Hercules, and Jason, and 
Theseus, and the stories of giants. If the sword protects the pen, the pen 
should, in return, protect the sword. We rarely find them happily united as in 
a Xenophon and a Julius Cagsar. 

I had been led casually to notice a brave military character of our own coun- 
try, without knowing any thing of his history, from observing now and then 
his remarkable deeds : first, in the Mediterranean, second, on Lake Erie, third- 
ly, on the coast of Brazil, and lastly, on the seaboard of South Carolina, when 
Gen. Scott commanded by land, in the unhappy difficulties of nullification ; in 
all which it appears that Jesse D. Elliott conducted to the entire satisfaction of 
the Congress of the United States, and its President. His being selected to 
carry despatches to Mr. Pinckney, our Minister at the Court of Great Britain, 
is not worth mentioning, were it not to show that there was something about 
Mr. Elliott that elicited patronage ; for he stood alone in the world, his father, 
Captain Robert Elliott, having been slain in battle with the Indians, when under 
the command of Gen. Wayne. He left a widow and nine children. Congress, 
exactly thirty years ago, when Nathaniel Macon was Speaker, Aaron Burr 
Vice-President, and Thomas Jefferson President, voted the sum of two thousand 
dollars to the widow and children of Robert Elliott, our Commodore being then 
but a school-boy. 

He was born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, (although the Port-Folio, Vol. IV., No. 
6, sayg in Maryland.) We know not the year of his birth, but guess his age to 
be about fifty. He was two years at Dickinson College, in Pennsylvania, when 
Mr. Jefferson gave him a midshipman's commission, under which, it seems, he 
resolved to carve lais way to distinction. He was on board the frigate Chesa- 
peake when she was fired into by the British ship Leopard. After that dis- 
graceful affair, he was transferred to the Essex, and went in her to the Medi- 
terranean to check the Barbary Powers, who had captured a number of our 
countrymen, and held them in the bonds of slavery. Deep anxiety on their 
account pervaded this country, and great responsibility was aimexed to this new 
service. It is a remarkable fact in our history, that the warlike Washington 
should be reconciled to pay tribute to those lawless corsairs, while peaceful 
Jefferson sent them powder and ball. Jefferson may be said to have, in a great 
measure, conquered the Mediterranean pirates. When he was our minister at 
the Court of France, he never ceased to denounce our humiliating practice of 
paying tribute to those buccaneers. It was the topic of many of his letters 
home. 

Congress was enabled to send but a small force on this service, and our 
limited means of annoyance compelled our infant navy to pursue a system of 
masculine intrepidity, severe discipline, and promptitude of obedience, of which, 
even to the present hour, we feel the benefits. The ferocity and treachery of 
the enemy taught our officers and crew to be ever on the alert, while their 
cruelty created a boldness on our side, that partook, at times, of rashness. It 
was in such a Spartan school of war that our midshipman commenced his salt- 
water education. On that element he learned to smile at danger, and become 
familiar with it. He returned to the United States in 1811; and served on 
board the ship John Adams, whence he was transferred to the Argus, of which 
he acted as first lieutenant. 



After we declared war against England, for impressing our seamen, and at- 
tacking, in time of peace, an unprepared frigate, it was determined, as the best 
means of drawing a British force off from the sea-ports, to divert their attention 
to their Canadian possessions ; and Commodore Chauncey was with this view 
sent to Lake Erie on our part, and Sir James Yeo, on the side of the British, to 
coimteract it. Chauncey was desirous of engaging Elliott in that service ; where- 
upon. Lieutenant Elliott was honored by an appointment to a command on Lake 
Erie. This we assert on the authority of the Port-Folio, of December, 1814, 
which contains his life, with a portrait of him. That account adds, that "he 
received orders to repair to Lake Erie, with all possible despatch, purchase 
what private vessels he could, build two ships of twenty guns, and as early as 
possible have his fleet in readiness to meet that of the enemy." 

The same authority, p. 330, adds—" Lieutenant Elliott knew the vast import- 
ance of the command of the Lakes in our war against Canada, and the difficulty 
and the delay which would attend the building of the vessels, and the expense. 
He had, in pursuance of his orders, purchased some vessels, but was embar- 
rassed with the difficulty of getting them up the Niagara, and into the Lake ; 
and he resolved to obtain them ready made. After revolving all the obstacles, 
he formed the heroic resolution of capturing two British brigs of war, that lay 
under the protection of the cannon of Fort Erie (which fortress we took from 
them since that period.) Elliot accordingly provided two boats with fifty men 
in each, and at one o'clock in the morning he came alongside of the Detroit and 
the Caledonia, lying under the protection of the Fort. He boarded, sword in 
hand, the two vessels of war, and carried them in ten minutes. He made one 
hundred and thirty prisoners, with their officers, and released forty of his own 
countrymen from captivity. They belonged to the 4th U. S. Regiment. Elliott 
entered the first man on boarding, and opposed three of the enemy with no other 
weapon than his cutlass." 

I think I hear the reader inquire, with surprise — "-How came I not ever to 
hear of this brilliant deed before?" I answer, because heroic men never brag — 
modesty and bravery go together, hand in hand. If individuals were silent, 
Congress were not, who passed the following resolve : " That the President of 
the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to have distributed, as 
prize money, to Lieutenant Elliott, his officers and companions, or to their 
widows and children, ttvelve thousand dollars, for the capture and destruction 
of the British brig Detroit;" and also, "Resolved, that the President of the 
United States be, and he is hereby requested to present to Lieutenant Elliott, of 
the Navy of the United States, an elegant sword, with suitable emblems and 
devices, in testimony of the just sense entertained by Congress of his gallantry 
and good conduct in boarding and capturing the British brigs Detroit and Cale- 
donia, while anchored under the protection of Fort Erie." 

The Hon. Henry Clay, when the new army bill was discussed in the House 
of Representatives, January. 1S13, said— " The capture of the Detroit, and the 
destruction of the Caledonia (whether placed to our maritime or land account) 
ioT judgment, skill and courage on the part of Lieiitenant [now Commodore^ 
Elliott, HAS NEVER BEEN suKP.^ssED." See National Intelligencer, February 6, 
1813, No. 1932. 

Shortly after this brilliant exploit. Lieutenant Elliot joined Chauncey at Sack- 
ett's Harbor, who sailed on the Sth of November, with six schooners, in quest 
of the enemy's fleet, and on the same day fell in with the Royal George, but 
found her next morning riding in Kingston Channel, under the protection of the 



10 

English batteries. He immediately followed her into the Channel, and engaged 
her for nearly two hours, and determined to board her in the nifrht ; but the 
wind increasing and blowing directly on shore, the pilot would not venture, and 
the Commodore reluctantly gave up the attempt. On this occasion Lieutenant 
Elliott commanded the vessel destined to lead in the enterprize. 

On the 24th of July, Mr. Elliott was promoted over t]drti/ lieutenants to the 
rank of master commandant. Whether this honorable promotion, for there is 
no date of the year (a negligence too often complained of in American publica- 
tions,) gave occasion to the unfriendly conduct of Commodore Perry, five years 
after their battle with the British (the 10th of September, 1813,) we are unable 
to say ; for Perry's high eulogiums on Elliott at that time, and years afterwards, 
and his tacking about and contradicting them, has been a mystery to the writer, 
and a matter of deep regret, as Oliver Hazard Perry had his esteem, friendship 
and respect. 

Captain J. D. Elliott commanded the Madison in Commodore Chauncey's fleet, 
which carried General Dearborn, with seventeen hundred men, to the attack of 
Fort George and York ; but, finding that his ship could not be brought into ac- 
tion, by reason of the shoalness of the water, he asked the Commodore's per- 
mission to lead the small vessels employed to cover the landing of the troops, 
of which there is the following evidence of it : — 

'' GospoRT Navy Yard, May 24th, 1S21. 
" To Cap. J. T). Elliott, U. S. Navy : 

"Dear Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge your communication, and feel a 
pleasure in stating that you were Flag-Captain of the Commodore's ship when 
the attack was made on York, Upper Canada. Your ship drawing too much 
water, could not get into action, and I know you volunteered to take the com- 
mand of a schooner, and, to the best of my knowledge, you were the first in 
action. Yours, &c., 

" J. MACPHERSON." 

From what has been said, it appears that our friend Elliott was always on the 
alert, always pushing forward in the road of danger, and always successful ; 
and always a favorite of the government ; and we venture to predict that he 
always will be, unless from disease, or some such sad calamity, he should, like 
some others, change his nature and his character. 

In our next number we shall speak of a spirited transaction in the Mediter- 
ranean, with the Bey of Tunis(?) as recorded by Mordecai M. Noah, in page 
383, of his Travels in Europe and Africa; for if Jesse Dimcan Elliott is really, 
as we now believe, an highly meritorious officer, we are disposed, as far as in 
our power, to sustain him in his absence; and, if otherwise, leave him to the 
reproaches he may merit from his countrymen. 



B. \-J. 



Cambridge, March -ith, 1835. 



U. S. Frigate Constitution, ( 

New York H.a.ebor, July r2th, 1835. S 
To General Nathan Towson : 

Sir — Your communication of the 6th instt^nt, was duly received, and I have 
given it the careful consideration to which it was entitled, on account of its 
subject and the distinguished source from which it proceeds. I appreciate the 
delicacy wliich restrained you from moving in the affair during my absence, 
and which offers me the option as to the mode in wliich it shall be made public 



11 

now. The latter I must decline. What explanations I have to make must be 
marie to yourself, with full permission to use them as you shall think expedient; 
I do not feel that the occasion requires me to volunteer a publication, and it is 
not my practice, nor would it accord with my feelings to force public attention 
unnecessarily to actions in which I have been engaged in the service of my 
country. Your position in this case is different from m.ine, and a publication by 
you will not be indelicate nor obtrusive. 

Your letter complains that in my official report, dated October 9th, 1812, of 
the capture at Niagara Straits of the British vessels Detroit and Caledonia, by 
the expedition under my command, justice is not fully rendered to yourself, and 
the services of the party of artillerists, wliich you accompanied in one of the 
boats ; and you request that I will supply the deficiency now. There is no man 
who more duly appreciates your high services and reputation than myself, and 
no man who would more reluctantly withhold from another his just meed of 
praise ; but it does not appear that I can aid you in this case. I cannot, after a 
lapse of nearly a quarter of a century, undertake, upon the evidence of a single 
and not uninterested witness, to alter an official report, made upon the tes- 
timony and under the correction of all the actors in the affair ; a report thus 
made and that has stood so long unquestioned, carries authority that its author 
cannot shake. It has become lustory, and nothing that is in my power to do 
now could alter it. Indeed, I could but state what you tell me, and which I 
now hear for the first time, though twenty-three years have passed since the oc- 
currence ; and my repetition of your statement would add nothing to its intrin- 
sic weight. Besides, if my intervention had any influence whatever, it might 
rather tend to diminish that weight, because I should feel bound to speak as the 
defender of the fame of the gallant dead, wliich your statement in effect im- 
peaches. 

The orphan family of the lamented Watts has no dearer inheritance than the 
lustre of liis actions, and that must not be tarnished by the hand of his old com- 
mander ; it is late now for any to tarnish it. It appears then to me, that if 
you continue to desire the publication of yftur statement, it will proceed most 
properly from yourself, and I will cheerfully offer here such comments as oc- 
cur to me upon its contents. There seems throughout your letter, and especially 
the latter portion of it, a disposition to depreciate the, merit of the enterprize 
referred to, and to decry the part taken by its conductor. I am reluctant to sup- 
pose that this is prompted by any feeling akin to hostility, and I regret to 
observe it. For my part, I may aver that I never claimed more merit than my 
comrades awarded to me, and that I studiously, at all times, have endeavored to 
render full justice to them and their gallant services. That I did so in your 
own case, that official report itself bears witness. 

You are there first named among the subordinate officers, whose gallantry is 
commended, though you volunteered as a private and had no command as far as 
I ever knew until now, when you inform me of it. That I did tliis in the case 
of others it may also testify. There stand prominently the names of the heroic 
Roach, Prestman and others, besides that of your commander Mr. Watts, who, 
soon after, sacrificed his life in spiking the guns that obstructed the in\%sion by 
General Smyth, who, with his command, then including yourself, looked on 
during the unimproved victory. Indeed, though you complain that the party of 
artillerists had not their sufficient fame, and invite me to amend the defective 
report of the action, you expressly defend me from any possible imputation of 
injustice. 



12 

You say that Mr. Watts, who commanded the boat in which you were placed, 
called on you I'or any statement that you might desire to offer, in order that I 
might embody it in my report ; yo^(, declined to make any except to your supe- 
rior officer, then Lieutenant Col. Scott, and that you have, therefore, no right to 
complain of the omission of any facts not loiown to me, and of which I could 
have had no knowledge. That, sir, is perfectly true, and the facts must defeat 
any suspicion of injustice on my part. The admission is the more generous — 
as — you will pardon the observation — it develops, not merely, a misapprehen- 
sion of your duty, but an act of insubordination, the consequences of which, to 
yourself and your corps, you are now, after twenty-three years, endeavoring to 
remedy. Had you reported to me then, there would have been no occasion to 
report to me now.* A small party of private soldiers, without officers, were 
lent to me by the general ; You and Captain Barker volunteered as privates on 
the expedition ; one only was allowed to go, and you won the privilege by lot — 
you went as a private, and for the occasion, your only superior officer was my- 
self. You were to obey and to report to me, and your refusal, w'hen the latter 
was required, was as much a breach of duty as would disobedience have been. 

Were it not for that step, your present communication would have been un- 
necessary. It is not apparent, sir, that you ever reported to General Scott ; it 
is certain, at least, that he has made no statement on the subject ; and it is 
inconsistent with his high, generous character, and perfect knowledge of all 
military duty, to ascribe his silence to any other cause than that he received no 
report from you, or that he justly considered himself not the quarter to which 
it should have been sent. I may remark, that this omission of your having 
refused to report to me, while it most completely exonerates me from any cen- 
sure on account of the omission alledged, does not so clearly effect the object for 
which it was designed. You offer it as the answer to two questions thus stated 
by yourself 

" You will probably ask why, if your official report was considered incorrect, 
or not sufficiently particular in its details, it was not mentioned to you at the 
time, and why it has been permitted to remain thus long without explanation or 
correction ?" 

It would certainly be very natural to ask those questions, and impartial ob- 
servers would hardly consider them conclusively answered by a statement, 
that, though called upon, you had refused to report to the officer commanding 
the expedition, and who alone was to make the report which you now seek to 
correct. Your withholding the report may account well enough for the alledged 
omission in the official statement ; but it does not explain why that omission 
was not pointed out at the time, concerning, as it did, an affair so important, 
that it is a " sacred duty'' to your companions to adjust it now. 

As to the second of the two questions, the answer seems particularly defec- 
tive ; nor does the further explanation offered appear less so. It seemed a small 
matter, you say, not worth public attention. Has the death of Captain Schenck 
increased its intrinsic importance ? Did the publication in the Courier render 
your duty to your comrades more sacred than it was originally ? The Courier 
said notliing of the details of the action, nor of the subordinates in the enter- 
prize. It spoke, and professed to speak, only of the share of the commander. 
Even of him the writer said notliing new — he merely quoted from an article in 
a magazine published twenty years ago, statements wliich have been before 
the world all that time, and open all that time to notice and animadversion. 

* See Major Bankhead's letter in Appendix. 



13 

The answer to the second question will appear to the reader quite as unsatis- 
factory as the answer to the first. 

I have always respected and borne cheerful testimony to your gallantry and 
services, and I certainly feel not the slightest inclination to do otherwise now. 
But your intimation made, as if disparagingly, that my boat's party had more 
luck than fightini;. while that to wliich you were attached met with a desperate 
resistance, will excuse me for reminding you that an enemy is never surprised, 
except by those who exert activity and prompt energy. That the two boats 
had an equal force of fifty men each. That I assigned to the boat in which you 
were the easier task of capturing a trading vessel defended by twelve men, in- 
cluding officers, with two small guns and small arms only, while I chose for my 
own object, a public armed brig mounting six guns, with a crew of fifty-six 
men, directed by naval discipline. How long your boat was occupied by her 
task you can best tell. That both boats succeeded, the public know. But that 
our effecting a surprise implies the absence of resistance, is very far from the 

fact. 

I was myself assailed by three men, armed with cutlasses, at the moment 
■when I sprung on the deck, and the surprise gained us nothing, except a hand- 
to-hand fight with an enemy superior in numbers. In the official report equal 
credit is given to both boats; or, if there be any diffisrence, yours, which had 
the easiest task, has the advantage in the report also. I am not criticising nor 
attempting to refute your communication, but merely touching here and there 
upon such points as appear singular or prominent, and I do not, therefore, at- 
tempt to notice now all your remarks, nor to correct, by my official records, 
the errors into wliich you have fallen. I deprecate controversy at all times, and 
certainly not less with an officer of your standing and character with whom I 
have been associated in youthful enterprize, and I trust that no real cause will 
ever occur to cloud the friendly relations which have so long, as I flattered my- 
self, existed between us. 

The present is not a subject on which a difference could gracefully arise, nor 
am I able to perceive how any good can possibly accrue to your bringing it be- 
fore the public. ' But of that I am not to be the judge, nor will I obtrude any 
advice on the subject. As I remarked in the commencement, these observa- 
tions are entirely at your disposal. 

I have the honor to be, respectfully. 

Your obedient servant, 

J. D. ELLIOTT. 



Washington, July IS, 1835. 
To Convnodore J. D. Elliott, 

Sir—1 have received your letter of the 12th, in answer to mine of the 6th 
instant. I regret that you should have misunderstood my object in addressing 
you. It was not to complain of your official report, and request you to supply the 
deficiency now : it was, simply, to offer you the opportunity of correcting, your- 
self, that part of the publication I enclosed to you, that relates to the capture 
of the Caledonia, and which ascribes to you acts that, from the circumstances 
of the case-, could not have beei]L^.and, as you know, were not performed by 
you. I referred to your official report to show that it is not alone sufficient to 
refute the statement ; but, by its omissions, rather sustains it. I expressly 
disclaimed all right to complain of thoga. omissionS; as I declined furnishing you 
3 



14 

the facts at the time it was made ; and I wish you distinctly to understand, that 
if I had believed I had just cause of complaint, there would have been no delay 
in urging it ; but not in the language of solicitation. 

You seem to think it would be indelicate in you to publish any thing on the 
subject ; and say it is not your practice, nor would it accord with your feelings, 
to force public attention, unnecessarily, to actions in which you have been en- 
gaged in the service of your country. In this case your friends have " forced 
public attenftion, unnecessarily," to your actions, and I do not perceive any 
more indelicacy in your noticing it, than there would be (if they claimed for 
you the property of another.) in your saying — it is none of mine. Some un. 
known person has recently sent me a newspaper, printed in Ohio, in which 
there is a paragraph or two, relating to this very subject, giving me credit that 
belongs to you. This I intend to correct ; believing it would be as dishonora- 
ble in me to wear your honors, as it would to wear your apparel. 

I did not ask, nor did I expect you to publish my letter. I went somewhat 
into dt'tail in communicating facts that would have been stated in my report, if 
I had made one to you ; believing you would prefer communicating, yourself, 
such of them to the public a-s you hiew to be correct. You knew, for instance, 
that you did not communicate with our boat after we separated on leaving Buf- 
falo Creek. You knew our boat boarded and carried the Caledonia after a sharp 
conflict, before you captured the Detroit ; and I presume you must have known 
that Mr. Watts left the brig the next morning, with the prisoners and seamen, 
soon after the enemy commenced firing on her ; and that the artillery remained 
on board, landed the greater part of the cargo, and brought the vessel near in 
shore ; and you certainly know that you intended she should be burnt, as well 
as the Detroit, to prevent the enemy's getting possession of her; and that she 
would have been burnt if I had permitted your order to be executed. These 
facts are all known to you, and do not rest " upon the evidence of a single and 
not uninterested witness." What occurred in the boat between Mr. Watts, the 
pilot, and myself, about the practicability of reaching the Caledonia, on account 
of the current, could not have been known to you, unless communicated by 
Mr. Watts; and it was not, therefore, expected you would say any thing about 
it. You knew the credit for commanding, in person, the boarders that captur- 
ed that vessel, belonged either to Mr. Watts or myself, and not to you ; and 
this was all it was expected you would state. I have no wish to do Mr. Watts 
injustice. It was his opinion the brig could not be approached, and although 
the event proved he was wrong, the difficulty in doing it showed that he had 
good grounds for his belief. 

In your " comments" on my letter, you say — " It here seems throughout 
your letter, and especially the latter portion of [it,] a disposition to depreciate 
the merits of the enterprize referred to, and to decry the part taken by its con- 
ductor. I am reluctant'to suppose this is prompted by any feelings akin to 
hostility, and I regret to observe it."' I will be candid with you on that 
as on every other subject. I do think that you might have made greater 
efforts to have brought the Detroit into harbor before you abandoned her ; that 
the circumstances under which she was burnt, if such as to justify the act, did 
not imperiously require it, and that it was not in keeping with the chivalrous 
daring wliich could plan and execute so hazardous an enterprize as the board- 
ing, with an inferior force, and capturing -'a public armed brig, mounting six 
guns, with a crew of fifty-six men directed by naval discipline." 

Some years past I was applied to, by a personal friend of Commodore Perry, 



15 

for a statement of the facts contained in the last paragraph, to be used to your 
prejudice, in the controversy then pending: between you ; but I refused to give 
it ; informing liini that I had no official claim on you, as he supposed, for ne- 
glecting me in your report ; and that the fact of your planning and undertaking 
so hazardous an enterprize removed from my mind all suspicion of what, many 
of Commodore Perry's friends seemed to suppose, had prevented your aiding 
him in the action on Lake Erie, as he expected. Candor requires me to say 
that I then, and until lately, did believe the Detroit \<"as commanded by a re- 
gular officer of the British navy. If such was not the fact, as I am informed, 
and that the commander was your relative, the enterprize, in my judgment, 
loses much of its daring character. 

I did not expect, nor did I wish, any thing to be said in correcting the article 
of which I complain, that would detract from the credit the public have award- 
ed you so far as relates to the Detroit, and planning the capture of the other 
brig. My object in submitting to you a comparison of the service performed 
by the two parties, was to show that, although you undertook that which ap- 
peared to be infinitely the more hazardous, it did not turn out to be so ; and, as 
the result shows, our boat had its full share of fighting and danger. It was not 
your fault, but your good fortune, that your adversary was not more vigilant ; 
that he permitted you to make a prize of him at the cost of one man '• lost" 
and " one officer wounded," instead of annihilating you. as he had the power 
to do with liis superior force and advantages, and as I believe would have been 
done had he been a regular officer of the British navy, especially after know- 
ing by what occurred to our boat, tliat an enemy was near him. 

I cannot allow that time cancels the claims o^ truth and justice ; and that a 
report which remains unquestioned, until " it becomes liistory," cannot be al- 
tered by its author. But my business is not with your report, but with the 
statement of an anonymous writer, who now claims Ibr you all merit in rela- 
tion to this matter, some of which I tliink belongs to others. You think it too 
late to relinquish it, as the writer has said nothing new of you, "he merely 
quoted from an article in a magazine, published twenty years ago, statements 
that have been before the world all that time, and open all that time to notice 
and animadversion." I know that legal claims are sometimes barred, on ac- 
count of time, by legislative enactments ; but I believe there is no limitation 
known to the moral code or to courts of honor. Until I saw the publication, 
copied from the Courier, I did not know that your biography had ever been 
written ; much less that it contained such a statement, or I assure you I should 
not now be taunted with having let the subject rest for twenty years; for, al- 
though I deprived myself of the right to complain of the official injustice of 
the omissions in your report, I never had a doubt of the propriety of resisting 
the attempt, of any one, to deprive me of a just right. 

You say — '' It is not apparent, sir, that you even reported to G.^neral Scott. 
It is certain, at least, that he has made no statement on the subject, and it is 
inconsistent with liis high, generous character, and perfect knowledge of all 
military duty, to ascribe his silence to any other cause than that he received no 
report from you, or that he justly considered himself not the quarter to which 
it should have been sent." How have you, sir, arrived at the certainty "that 
he never made no statement on the subject?" You recollect the battle of 
Queenstown followed soon after the capture of the brigs. Our detachment was 
put in motion immediately after I joined it, and from that time until we arrived 
at Queenstov.n, where this distinguished officer was captured, he had no time to 



16 

make a report. The following extract from one of his letters to me, shows that, 
although delayed by liis capture, it was not neglected. " In that letter [refer- 
ring to a previous one,] I informed you of a conversation had with the secretary 
upon the subject of the capture of the British vessels from under Fort Eric 
and of the distinguished part wlucli you bore in that enterprize. He thought 
you entitled to a brevet. This was on the way from Philadelphia to Baltimore. 
At Washington, I recalled his attention to the subject in a strong written state- 
ment. I liave no doubt the commission will issue, and I trust without further 
delay." ■ . 

The brevet he mentions has been conferred ; and is one by which 1 obtained 
my present rank. 

I must now call your attention to the charge of officers of the army having 
served with you as privates. This is not the first time you have used that 
argument, and retracted it in the way I shall now state. You recollect that 
you handed me the prize-tickets for my command at Fort George, remarking 
that I would find mine with the rest ; I put the bundle in my pocket, and we 
separated. When I came to examine them, I found my rank was not recog- 
nized in the ticket. Supposing it to be a mistake, I laid it by until I should 
again meet with you, or have an opportunity for explanation. We met, for 
the first time after the receipt of the ticket, at General Scoffs marque, at 
Buffalo. Knowing that I was to meet you, I put the ticket in my pocket. 
When we met, I required an explanation, remar Icing at the same time, that 
when I embarked in the expedition, I did not dream of prize-money ; and if the 
object in assigning to me the share of a private was to increase the amount to 
be divided among the other capjors, I would make you a compliment of the 
whole — offering you the ticket ; but that before I could hold friendly intercourse 
with you, 1 must know why it was that 1 had been designated as a private. 
You then explained, tliat under the regulations of the navy, at the time the 
ticket was made out, you were not privileged to give any other; but that the 
regulation' had since been changed, and you were then at liberty to do me justice, 
by recognizing my rank in another ticket, which you soon afterwards sent 
to me. 

You will recollect, that at a subsequent meeting I refused to receive your 
offered hand, and to hold intercourse with you, until I ascertained by inquiry at 
the Navy Department, that there was no established rule for distributing prize- 
money to troops serving with the navy at the date of the first ticket. I did not 
then, nor do I now, think this a full justification of your course; for altliough 
you were not expressly directed to give to the officers of the army tickets cor- 
responding with their rank, you were not prohibited from doing so ; and, at least, 
it was due to them, as an act of courtesy, to explain why you did not. 

Do you suppose, sir, that officers of the army have so little self-respect that 
they would consent to serve as privates in their proper commands, for the honor 
and advantage of officers of the navy? If there had been marines, wliose ser- 
vices you could command, would you have expected their officers to have served 
with them as privates ? Or did you expect an officer of the army would consent, 
or be required, to furnish you his command, without accompanying it on such a 
service ? As the detacliment of artillery required on that occasion was less than 
a captain's command, General Scott suggested that it should be furnished by the 
two companies, in equal proportions, and the command be given to the adjutant 
o^ the detachment, the gallant, and afterwards eminently distinguished,* Major 

* See Letters of General Smyth and Major Bankhead in Appendix. 



17 

Roach, against which Captain Barker and myself remonstrated in the most de- 
cided terms, notwithstanding the entire confidence we had in that officer, and 
the strong friendship, (not to say brotherly aifection.) we entertained for him. 
Nay, so tenacious were Captain Barker and myself on that point, that had the 
rank been settled between us, we should have considered it derogatory to have 
waived the claim of seniority ; but as it was not, we agreed to decide it by lot. 
No officer of the army, who is worthy to hold a commission, would consent to 
serve in the ranks with his own men. for the purpose of increasing a naval com- 
mand ; such a proposition is too absurd to require refutation. My understanding 
was, that the command of the seamen, and every thing relating to the manage- 
ment of the boat, and to the navigation of the brig, after capture, belonged to 
Mr. Watts ; but the entire command of the troops belonged to me. If you are 
correct as to the conditions on which the officers of the army, who had com- 
mands, volunteered, why did youjiot maintain it when I spoke to you about 
the prize-ticket ? Why did you change that given to private Towson, for one 
as " captain?" 

I do not agree that I was bound to report to you after I landed. My com- 
mand, it is true, performed a subordinate duty ; but if it deserved praise or cen- 
sure, it was to he received from our m.ilitary superiors. It was proper that our 
conduct should be represented to the War Department ; and you were not the 
channel of communication. The rule on this subject, both in the army and 
navy, is too well settled to be questioned now. 

I will say one word in relation to your report. Although I had no official 
claim on you for more notice than you bestowed on my command, I should have 
felt deeply mortified at having dealt as sparingly with you, had I been in your 
place, and made a report with the same knowledge of facts. 

I have commented at great length on your letter, and with plainness, under 
the belief, that between gentlemen of our profession there should be perfect 
frankness. 

I deprecate controversy as much as you can. and regretted the suspension of 
our friendly intercourse heretofore, as I do on this occasion. You seem to tliink 
it never was suspended ; whether it is to be renewed hereafter, must depend on 
yourself. 

It is my present intention to claim for my command what I think belongs to 
it, by a brief statement in the public prints ; and to disclaim what has been im- 
properly taken from you and given to me. I have no wish to trouble the public 
with this correspondence, unless circumstances should make it necessary, but 
leave you at perfect Liberty to do so if you think proper. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

N. TOWSON. 



} 



U. S. Frigate CoNSTiTirTioN, 
New York Harbor, July 23, 18-35. 
To General Nathan Towson, 

Sir — Your letter of the 18th inst. reached me yesterday. The perusal of 
it gave me surprise as well as pain. It was painful to see an officer of your 
reputation involve himself in what I must call so discreditable a manner. I 
felt surprise, that neither your experience nor your counsellors had been able 
to save you from the misfortune. You have placed yourself in a predicament 
so unfortunate, that I believe no gentleman or officer ever incurred the like ; 
and you appear resolved to force me to exhibit you thus to the public. Your 



18 

reputation ascribes intelligence to you at least ; and I feel astonished that, after 
my letter of the 12th, you should persevere in advancing the absurd claims for 
which you opened this correspondence. Whether your demand was prompted 
by restless vanity alone, and you fancied that you might regain public attention, 
and, perhaps, some slight additional cretUt, or whether you were urged on by 
some designing persons of more talent than honesty, is of little moment; in 
either case, it is very strange that, after reading my letter, you did not perceive 
that it would be prudent for you to let the affair rest unstirred. I showed you, 
as delicately as I could, how fatal the discussion upon the claims you advanced 
must be to your reputation, and intimated my willingness to leave you safe in 
its oblivion. You appear to have been either incapable of comprehending your 
danger, and to listen only to the craving for notoriety, or to have been impelled 
forward by hostihty to me, whether of your own, or of some one who does not 
appear. The general circumstances seem to indicate the former — the tenor of 
your letters, especially the last, points to the latter. Be it which it may, I am 
indifferent ; no one can know you better than yourself; and if I judge you by 
your own showing in these letters, you are not one whom I would ever call 
friend. You must pardon my plaimiess, sir ; I write frankly, and employ no 
attorney — for / at least have no special pleading to do. I used what measure 
of courtesy I could compass in my former letter ; the tenor of your reply, and 
the light in wliich you there exhibit yourself, will excuse me from any effort 
now to wrap up honest meanings in courtly phrases ; nor can I spare time to 
follow you through all the petty points of your pleading ; the principal ones I 
will dispose of as briefly as may be, leaving the straws to lloat or sink with 
them. The chief subjects on which we are at issue are very few; the capacity 
in which you attended the expedition is the most prominent. I have asserted 
that you went as a private ; you distinctly and deliberately affirm that you 
commanded the soldiers — and on this, and one other point, turns the discussion. 
I will not cloud it by circumlocution, but will meet your assertion by a direct 
contradiction, and by incUsputable evidence. 

I need not copy your statement, and the explanations given to support it ; 
mine is this : by the copies of letters from General Van Rensselear to Major 
General Hall and myself, which are annexed, you will perceive that I could 
have had militia ; but knowing that they had wives and families, and that the 
regular troops for the most part had not, I concluded to take the latter, and 
applied for the loan of some, without officers, who could rank my subordinates, 
as I designed the latter to retain the command. The general acceded to my 
request, and directed his brigade-major to detail the troops, which were placed 
under Ensign Prestman, and were commanded by him. I annex an extract 
from the letter of the brigade-major himself, and the letter from the general, 
brought by Ensign Prestman, to prove these facts. You and Captain Barker 
volunteered as privates ; one only was accepted — and the lot fell on you. You 
went as a private, under Ensign Prestman, who commanded the troops. The 
same evidence will establish these facts also. If it does not establish them all, 
I have no othn- testimony, save my own word, in my possession. But it must ; 
it is irrefragable. You dare not contradict Major Bankhead; you cannot contra- 
dict the letter of General Smyth, written at the very time, and showing beyond 
question, that Prestman was designated for the command, and brought me the 
troops. If it docs establish them, iu what light do you stand? After you were 
reminded of these facts, and had ample opportunity to consult records, as well 
as your memory, you deliberately assert, and through pages endeavor to prove, 



19 

that you went in command of the troops — and all for the purpose of effecting 
the poor scheme, prompted by some designing knave, or your own vanity, of 
getting a dispute with me, or some additional credit for yourself 

Your stand, sir, in the attitude of one who has made a well considered, de- 
liberate assertion, to his own profit and the injury of others, and then has the 
utter incorrectness of his assertion prcyved by the clearest and most direct evi- 
dence. It is an unpleasant attitude for an officer and a gentleman. I would, if I 
could, suppose that you believed your statement yourself, but the facts do not 
warrant the assumption ; they are not of the kind about which one could mis- 
take. You complain of my report. If you went as a private, that document 
gave you even more than your full share of praise. If you commanded the 
troops, the question will still arise, why have twenty-three years been suffered 
to pass without an effort from you to claim what you say was due to you ? But 
you were then a private, and your assertion of the contrary now is as unworthy 
and unfortunate, as it is foreign from truth. I must place this point strongly, 
unwilling as I am to see General Townson take such a position, because on this 
depends really the whole controversy, for it is the foundation of it. If your 
word is good on tnis point, against the clearest evidence, it is good for all the 
rest also — hut not othervdse. 

It would have been well, sir, had you comprehended the tenor of my former 
letter, for it might have saved you. I intimated clearly enough, though deli- 
cately, that my real reason for declining the step you proposed was my Jcnow- 
ledge that your statement was not true, and it is unlucky that you did not un- 
derstand me. You are proved now, sir, to have stated deliberately and repeat- 
edly what was untrue. But there is more in it — and the degree of stolidity 
exhibited in your course is absolutely unexampled. If I could be persuaded 
that you had. after sailing, assiuned the command of the boat, I should be forced 
to condemn you even more severely, if that were possible, than I do now. If 
you are correct on that point, you not only broke an engagement to which your 
honor was pledged, but you were guilty of insubordination and mutiny, for 
wliich you might even now be brought to a Court Martial. You were accepted 
only as a private ; by offering as such you virtually pledged your honor that 
you would act as such, and would not use your authority with the soldiers to 
take the command. We were wrong, then, in trusting you, and you broke 
your word of honor, to your general, to his brigade-major, and to your equally 
brave, but I hope more trustworthy competitor. Captain Barker. All this re- 
sults, if we believe your assertion that you assumed the command. But there 
is more — the terms on which you went made you a private for the time — if you 
got the command you were guilty of insubordination to the extent that consti- 
tutes mutiny, and your moral crime was quite as great as though you owned no 
commission, and cannot be atoned for, if it can even be palliated, by the result 
of the expedition. 

You have had the credit, sir, of volimteering on a dangerous enterprize as a 
private when you could not go as an officer, and your vanity, or your managers, 
have prompted you to reject that, and to claim what did not belong to you, and 
even is not merit, though you deem it so. You would persuade us that you 
took advantage of our confidence in your honor to get among us, in a boat in 
which / u-as not, and to snatch then by fraud from the gallant Prestman* the 
honor of commanding a portion of the victorious party ; and your tale would 
rob, also, the heroic Watts of his honors. But that, sir, it shall not effect. I 

* See letters of General Smyth and Major Bankhead in Appendix. 



20 

step with you into his sepulchre, to defend what you would wrench away, and 
I do defend his rights hy proving your tale untrue. I save even you, also, by 
restoring the credit which you would discard — of having volunteered as a pri- 
vate under a subordinate officer. It was well done, sir, and well has it been 
rewarded. 

Another principal point is as to the preservation of the Caledonia, and the 
burning of the Detroit. On both these you are as widely in error as in the 
former, and this part may be disposed of in few words. You mistake entirely 
my reason for burning the Detroit. I had, and could have, no fear that the ene- 
my would remove, if they retook her, for she was riddled with shot and unable 
to float ; she had already sunk, and was aground, full of water. But I burned 
her to save the g^ins in her hold, which were invaluable to us. Had her masts 
been left, the enemy might have raised and carried them off; they were pre- 
vented, and subsequently we erected shears and got out the guns. 

In relation to the other brig, also, you are entirely wrong. I never had a 
thought of burning her. There was no occasion for it, as, at the time of which 
you speak, she lay in safety at the Navy Yard, under protecti^ of our battery. 
Besides, naval officers do not send a nameless sailor with combustibles and a 
verbal order, as you allege, to burn vessels that are lying in perfect safety. Hie 
Detroit was burned by Captain Chambers, of the 5th Infantry, at my request. 
Your recollection is quite as imfortunate on this point, as it was relative to the 
capacity in which you served in an expedition of which half the merit you claim 
to yourself 

I have letters from officers, eye witnesses, that contradict to the letter almost 
every thing you alledge respecting the closing incidents of the enterprize, but 
they would occupy much space, and really your personal testimony does not 
stand in that degree of credit that might require corroboration of my own op- 
posing evidence, and of that of circumstances, and we' may pass this head as 
answered. I will furnish one extract, however, to show that I had no reason 
for burning the Caledonia, as I did not believe the enemy had landed. It is 
from the letter of Major Myers, then Captain in 1.3th Infantry.* 

I have thus noticed the two principal subjects at issue between us, and I may 
presume it is done to your conviction, if not to your satisfaction. As I said 
above, I cannot advert to every minute allegation in your unfortunate letter, 
but a few I may take up to use as specimens of the rest. 

And first, you state that the boat which contained the party that attacked the 
Caledonia had no communication with the other after startins:. This is incor- 
rect ; the boats started from the same place, at the same time. The boat in 
which you were, was steered by mine, and if you did not see our boat, we dis- 
tinguished yours quite plainly. Sailing Master Watts had his instructions to 
keep near my boat, to board, carry, and bring over to Buffalo the brig Himter, 
which the Caledonia was supposed to be. Thus yom- inexperience in naval 
proceedings but serves to expose your presumption. 

You argue, for several pages, that it was impossible and improbable that you 
acted as a private, and you declare that " no officer of the army who is worthy 
to hold commission would consent to serve in the ranks with his ov.m men, to 
increase a naval command." Perhaps so. I differ from you ; but I have proved 
that you did that very thing — that is. that yon consented , nay, offered. But you 
say you violated your engagement ! This is hardly worth while, but it affords 
occasion to notice the very elaborate argument by which you are made to sus- 

* See letter of Capt. M)'ers in Appendix. 



21 

tain your assertion that you went in command of the soldiers, and to remark 
how completely the argument is overset by the simple fact that you did not go 
thus. It would seem almost that you could not have even read that last letter 
to which your name is signed, so extraordinary are the violations of truth, or 
the lapses of memory which it develops. Here is a monstrous one that shows 
your recollection is not good even from the 6th to the ]8th of July — 12 days. 
Under the latter date you tell me, in order to account for the long neglect of 
this matter, that you did not knoiv that such a statement (that which you im- 
peach) had ever been made, or you certainly would not have been taunted with 
twenty years' delay. You had forgotten that on the 6th you wrote that you 
had been frequently advised to come out with a statement on the subject, but 
that you thought it a .small matter, not important enough to interest the public. 
Controversialists should have their facts settled, or good memories, or not 
change their amanuenses. 

You are right, sir, in saying that a report may be amended by its author, 
even after it " becomes history ;" but then it must be upon ample evidence, 
and full conviction of its inaccuracy — and never upon such testimony as yours 
is proved in the case discussed. 

Your distinction is quite right, also, between limitations in law and in honor ; 
but you see it does not apply here. What I said was, that it was too late to 
alter a well proved report upon the appeal of "a single and not uninterested 
witness," who had tacitly confirmed it at the time ; and the new evidence bears 
me out. These are slight points, and you will pardon the desultory character 
of my notices — I take up the topics as I turn the leaves. 

Your complaint about your prize ticket is answered by yourself in the record 
that when you received the ticket, the regulations of the navy allowed me to 
give you only a private's ticket ; but that when those were changed, I gave you 
a captain's. By the way, you appear to make no account of the favor. I may 
have done wrong in that case, and it is possible that in allowing private Tow- 
son a captain's share, I did injustice to Mr. Watts and the rest, who, or their 
representatives, may have a claim upon you or me for it. But I might plead 
that I admired what I thought your gallantry in waving your rank to seek dan- 
ger, and that my feelings influenced me, as when in my report I named you be- 
fore even Prestman, whom your general made your real commander, and 
Roach, who was in the boat with myself, both of whom have been presented 
warmly to the War Department, who hold a high place in my recollection, whom 
I am proud to claim as my personal friends, and who are now uncoupled with 
the service.* You have shown me my error, but this might answer your ques- 
tion as to my reason for changing your ticket. 

But I will give you the real explanation. You misunderstood, or misrepre- 
sented me, as you have done in so many other cases. What I told you was, 
that when I gave you a private's ticket, I understood the regulations to allow you 
no other ; but that it afterwards occurred to me that a part of the prize money 
belonged to grades of rank not represented, and I resolved, therefore, to allow 
you an officer's ticket. You had no absolute right to it, but I was willing to do 
you a favor. That is the real state of the case, yet from that favor has grown 
one of your principal charges against me. 

As to your alledged refusal once to take my hand, I have not the slightest re- 
collection of any such occurrence, and there is the best reason for placing little 
confidence in yours. 

* See letters of Ensign Prestman and Major Roach, in the Appendix^ 
4 



22 

I do not believe the assertion. The only conversation between us that I re- 
member on such a subject, was in Washington, twelve or fifteen years ago, 
when you requested a conference, spoke of my recent coldness, asked if it was 
not on account of a then recent publication in a Pittsburg paper (stating in gene- 
ral terms that justice had not been done you) and learning that it was, you dis 
avowed all agency or part in the matter. Upon that disavowal, I gave you my 
hand, which you accepted eagerly, and, to my knowledge, nothing else of the 
kind ever occurred between us. 

You ask how I know that General Scott never reported concerning my expe- 
dition. In two ways : the report was never seen, and General Scott would 
never have done me such discourtesy as to report concerning my subordinates, 
except as from me. The point was trivial and incidental, but with the fatality 
which has marked your every step .in this affair, it has flung more suspicion 
upon you. 

You say that he wrote a private letter of such a nature as to procure for you 
the brevet by which you obtained your present rank. I am sorry to hear it. 
There was thrift in view, then, if you withheld what you call your report from 
the commander of the expedition! If you had confided your merits to him, 
they would have been published under the correction of your companions, and 
you would have received your exact share of glory, enhanced only by his par- 
tiality. But you did better — you made a private report of your acliievements to 
General Scott that was never published, and which none could contradict; and 
believing you, as we did when we accepted you as a volunteer private, he so 
represented it. of course upon yonr testimony, as to obtain for you the brevet 
which has made you a general officer I It looks like a piece of skillful manage- 
ment ! 

You compare the difficulties encountered by the two boats, and remark that 
though mine undertook what seemed to be the more arduous and dangerous task, 
it did not prove to be so ; and your reasons are, that I carried the Detroit with 
slight loss, and speedily, while Mr. Watts had a hard fight, and incurred great 
loss. I had the honor, sir, to explain, in my former letter, why a surprise in 
such a case may succeed, or fail, and beg to refer you to the passage. You in- 
timate that our enemy was commanded by a provincial officer, less skillful 
than one of the line ; true, but if you measure thus, remember that my fifty 
men beat fifty-six, and took the heavily armed vessel with little loss, while the 
fifty, of whom you were one, had but twelve antagonists— aVjzew* commanded 
by a citizen — in a merchant vessel, to make all the slaughter of which you com- 
plain. 

On another topic, which you bring in, I can scarcely speak calmly. Sir, do 
you not perfectly know — have you not ever known — that, until after the cap- 
ture of the Detroit was completely effected, and the sword of her commander 
was yielded, both that officer and myself were entirely ignorant of even each 
other's existence? and that, despite the distant connection by marriage between 
my half brother and him, we had never met, nor seen each other, nor had the 
slightest communication? Sir, you must have known all this well, and the na- 
ture of your reference to that accidental and unknown connection is one of the 
least worthy features in your letter. 

I remember, in a letter of Commodore Perry's, a remark of this kind : ''I 
would not allow myself to come to a decided opinion that an officer who had on 
a former occasion so handsomely conducted himself (as I then, in common with 
the public, had been, led to svppose Captain Elliott had) could possibly be guilty," 



23 

&c. Tt was a singular expression that ! Had " been led to siippose !" Who had 
fluns; the donbt ? I have never found a clue. You tell me that you have been tam- 
pered with by Commodore Perry's friends — yo7i now lling an impeachment of 
my conduct on that '• former occasion I" Yo7i tell me that you " always thought 
it strange that the Detroit should have been captured so quickly," &c. You 
kept it well from me ! Were you, then, the incendiary that kindled dissension 
between Perry and me ? — that turned our frank friendship into hatred on his 
part ? Were yo?f the viper that stung ? — was it you that crept between us. and 
embittered our kindly feelings ? Were you t/n/s avenging the slight part which 
only could be assigned you in that enterprize, which still haunts you? I can- 
not believe it — it is impossible that one who possesses your reputation could be 
guilty of this inconceivable baseness ! There was no cause, no sufficient mo- 
tive, for such tremendous wickedness. We do not expect such things from the 
frank, gallant soldier. And yet the act was of a class to be done by the creep- 
ing, sly, profit-making spirits who hang around commanders, and make private 
reports of their own brave deeds, and get brevets for them. But no — it could 
not be you. Yet I would give much to knpw who it was. The foul wrong has 
clung to me to this day, and I am not patient under it. 

One point escaped me, in your former communication, which can be here 
answered. You say that "if Mr. Watts or the seamen had remained, or re- 
turned after the cargo was landed, we should have been able to have brought 
the vessel into port." Mr. Watts and his brave companions had a more noble 
employment than removing furs ; they were at the battery at Black Rock, un- 
der my. immediate direction, in desperate fight, and many of them left their 
gory bodies there as testimonials of the desperate conflict of that morning. 

But to have done with tliis. I consider, sir, that you are set on by my ene- 
mies to bait me, or that your own vanity has instigated you to make yourself 
gain at my expense, and that you pursue your aim in a spirit of determined hos- 
tility. I thought so in reading your first letter ; but the hazard to yourself was 
so fearful that I presumed you would have prudence enough to desist when that 
was pointed out to you. I have observed less restraint now, as is natural 
toward a determined foe, but I still think you will have caution enough to 
avoid publication. If you have not, I shall simply publish this correspondence. 

Your obedient servant, 

J. D. ELLIOTT. 



On July 2dth a letter was received from Genl. Towson, bearing his frank 
and seal, which evidently was not such as it had been intimated to him would 
o?ily be received. It was, therefore, returned unopened with the following : 

U. S. Ship Constitution, H.irbor of ( 
New Yoek, July 29, 1835. \ 

To General Nathan Towson, 

Sir — I informed you in my letter of the 23d, that I should with that close 
the correspondence. The tenor of that paper was such, that any further com- 
munication from you must, to be received, be of that kind that is sent, not 
through the post-ofiice and sealed, but by a friend Your letter, mailed on the 
27th; is therefore returned unopened. 

(Signed) ; ' J. D. ELLIOTT. 



24> 

The following note was delivered on board the Constitution, August 17th, by 
Dr. Macauly, with the observation that he wished to make some remarks rela- 
tive to it, and a request that Com. Elliott would appoint a friend with whom he 
might confer. To this Com. Elliott replied, by introducing him to Col. Canonge, 
who was waiting in his after cabin in readiness for such an emergency. Com. 
Elliott had been, at that time, three days under sailing orders, and was lying 
off Staten Island, 

New Yoek, August 17, 1835. 
Sir — My friend, Doctor Macauly, waits on you with a proposition from me. 
If you accede to it, he is authorized, on my part, to make the arrangements 
for our meeting. 

With due respect, &c. 
(Signed) N. TOWSON. 

Commodore J. D. Elliott. 



The note below was sent by Col. Canonge -as a reply to the above, in con- 
formity with the advice of that gentleman, after his interview with Dr. Macauly, 
who left the ship, it was understood, fully comprehending that a meeting was 
arranged for the following morning at 6 o'clock; all preparations for which 
had been made — place, distance, time and arms being specified. Col. Canonge 
and Dr. Macauly went to town together to confer with Gen. Towson. 

U. S. Ship Constitution, ( 
. August 17, 1835. ) 

Sir — The note which you presented to me to-day, I can only receive as a 

challenge. If this is intended, you are referred to my friend, Col. Canonge, 

for other necessary arrangements. 

Your obedient servant, 

(Signed) J. D. ELLIOTT. 

Dr. Macauly, ipresent. 



The affair was subsequently brought to an unexpected close by the following 
reply, which was brought on board the frigate by Col. Canonge, after his inter- 
view with GeiL Towson. 

New York, August 17, 1835. 

Sir — I was not authorized by General Towson to offer his note to you as a 
challenge, but to make the following proposition ; " That you should select an 
officer or other friend, who, with myself, should decide, under the existing 
circumstances, the party who should send the cliallenge ; and further, should 
he be the challenged party, that he waves any advantage from that circum- 
stance." These propositions you rejected. 

Very respectfully; your obed''t serv"t, 

(Signed) C. MACAULY. 

Commodore Elliott, TJ. S, Frigate Coii^titiUion. 



25 

The letter to Dr. Holland was sent, as will be seen from the date, in the 
interval between Com. Elliott's returning Genl. Towson's letter of July 29th, 
and his receiving the message by Dr. Macauly on the 17th of August — an 
interval so long as to warrant the opinion that Genl. Towson was inclined to 
carry the matter no farther. 

It may be well to observe, that Col. Canonge, on the receipt of Gen. Tow- 
son's last note, returned on board the Constitution during the night, and ad- 
vised Com. Elliott that, having done all in his power to bring the affair to an 
issue, he had now only to go to sea, leaving the farther defence of his reputation 
to Col. Canonge. 

U. S. Ship Constitution. \ 

New York, Aug. 11, 183-5. \ 

To WiUlam Holland, Esq. 

Dear Sir — About to sail on a cruise of some duration, I cannot depart with- 
out expressing to you my high sense of the friendly zeal with which the New 
York Times has repelled the attacks directed against me by a partisan press. 
I concur with you in the opinion, that political feelings, if not political views, 
have contributed, with private hostility, to prompt those attacks ; and the friends 
of the administration will, I trust, note ^vith approbation the able defence for 
wliich personally I feel so grateful. 

The numerous quarters whence these arrows were launched, and their simul- 
taneous appearance, indicate a concert of action, which could only result from 
some deliberate plan directed by concealed agents, and such I believe to have 
existed. You will perceive from the correspondence, copies of which are en- 
closed, that while your press was defending me against those whom my situa- 
tion precluded my noticing in person, another branch of the scheme was in 
operation which I could meet myself. The application of General Towson 
was so extraordinary, the claim so imfounded, that I cannot doubt his being 
instigated by some of those who have banded themselves against me. The 
strong suspicion that the recent public and private attacks upon me were 
prompted from the same quarter, will probably appear to you to be well rogh 
justified, if you compare a passage in General Towson's second letter, with a 
passage in one of the articles of the Courier and Enquirer. I mean that, as- 
serting that family connections of mine were engaged in that war on the side 
of the enemy. My reply to General Towson will show you how idle is snch 
an assertion : but the facts, that the alledged connection has, never so far as I 
know, and I should be likely to know it, been stated or alluded to, in any 
newspaper or publication whatever — that the empty gossip had probably been 
heard by very few only — and that now, for the first time, it should be brought 
up by General Towson, in a letter to me, almost simultaneously by the Cou- 
rier and Enquirer in its columns — certainly afford plausible grounds for the 
idea, that on that point at least, if not throughout, the same hand directed the 
attack in both quarters. 

As to the officer alluded to. although my enem}', I am boimd to say that his 
conduct, so far from being suspected by his countrymen, was. T have heard, con- 
sidered by them to deserve the compliment of a sword and a dinner, which 
were paid him at Montreal. 

You are welcome to show the correspondence to any of your fri^^ds, and in- 
deed I know no reason on my part, for objecting to its publication, if that be 
deemed advisable. I have now allowed General Towson twelve days since my 
last note to him, for any ulterior steps he might choose to take ; and as he is 



26 

silent, I presume he intends to go no further. For the rest, he certainly has 
no right to claim the suppression of the correspondence, and he distinctly inti- 
mates in his last, an intention to make a statement on the subject of it ; whe- 
ther he has thought better of it, and abandoned his purpose, or whether he 
withholds it only until I shall have sailed, is of course matter for conjecture 
alone. But, in any case, he certainly has no claims on my forbearance. I put 
the correspondence in your hands, to be used as you shall judge proper. 

With the reiteration of my grateful acknowledgments of your kindness, ac- 
cept also assurances of the high respect and esteem with which I remain, 

Yours truly, 
(Signed) J. D. ELLIOTT. 



On Monday, the 19th, the day after Commodore Elliott's sailing for the Me- 
diterranean, the following paragraph appeared in the New York Courier and 
Enquirer ; — 

" Monday, 11, P. M. — We have just been informed, that a friend of General 
Towson waited upon Elliott, on board the Constitution, yesterday afternoon, 
and submitted the following proposition : — 

" ' General Towson authorizes me to propose, that Commodore Elliott should 
select an officer or other friend, who with myself shall decide, under existing 
circumstances, which party shall challenge ; and further, should he (General 
Towson.) be the challenged party, he agrees to wave any advantage arising 
from that position.' 

" This proposition, after an hour's deliberation, was peremptorily rejected." 

In consequence of the above paragraph. Col. Canonge called (as Commodore 
Elliott was subsequently informed.) on the Editor of the New York Courier 
and Enquirer, and caused the Ibllowing explanation to be inserted in the same : 

Copied from the Neiu York American. 

" Sir : — I hasten to correct a statement wliich appears in the Courier and 
Enquirer of this morning, which does injustice to Com. Elliott. I bore the 
propositions from Gen. Towson to Com. Elliott, which, at the request of the 
Commodore, were reduced to writing ; upon a very short consultation with a 
friend, they were returned by the Commodore, who declined receiving them, 
but expressed his willingness to consider the note I had delivered as a challenge ; 
a communication to which effect he made in writing. Having no authority from 
Gen. Towson to proceed further in the matter, in case the propositions were 
declined, an answer was given to the Commodore to that effect. Gen. Towson 
has desired that the statement should be made, and requests its immediate pub- 
lication, as an act of justice to Com. Elliott. 

" Very respectfully, 

" Your obedient servant, 

" P. MACAULY. 

" Friday Mornivg, Avg. IS." 

" The following are the propositions referred to, in the above letter. 

" ' Gen. Towson authorizes me to propose, that Com. Elliott should select an 
officer, or other friend, who with myself shall decide, under existing circum- 
stances, wliich party shall challenge ; and I'urther, should he (Gen. Towson.) be 
the challenged party, he agrees to wave any advantage arising from that po- 
sition.' " 

Tills proposition was delivered, unopened by Commodore Elliott, to Colonel 
Canonge, who directed the Commodore to reply to it by an unconditional ac- 
ceptance of it, as a challenge, as shown by the correspondence above. 



APPENDIX 



Head Quarters, Lewistown, Sept. 25, 1812. 
Sir, — I have this moment received your letter of yesterday, stating Lieut. 
Elliott has proposed to make an attempt to cut out one of the vessels at Erie, 
and has requested your assistance by men, &c., for the enterprize. 

You will please to furnish Lieut. Elliott immediately with men, arms, ammu- 
nition, boats and implements of every kind to the uttermost of his wishes, and 
the means you can possibly command to render the enterprize successful. 

I am, sir, 

S. VAN RENSSELAER. 
Major Genl. Hall, Commanding Black Rock. 



Head Quarters, Lewistow.x, Sept. 25, 1812. 

Sir, — I enclose you a copy of a letter I have this day sent to Major-General 
Hall, with my best wishes that success may crown your enterprize. 
I am, sir, with great respect, 

Your most obedient servant. 

Signed, S. VAN RENSSELAER, Major-Geyieral. 

Lieut. Elliott, of the IT. S. Navy, Buffalo. 



KiNDERHOOK, JuLY 15, 1835. 

Bear Sir,— I think it was on the night of the 10th inst., that Col. Schuyler, 
then commanding the brigade, and Cols. Mead and Stranahan's rejriment of the 
Militia were informed in my presence by the Militia patrols, that the British 
were crossing the Niagara, both above and below us, in great numbers. The 
colonel then requested me to take a few with me, and select a station of the 
river where I could see all that passed on it. I posted myself on the bank a 
little to the north of Genl. Porter's house, and immediately sent a man to camp 
to inform the colonel that there was no movement on the river, in that direc- 
tion, as far as the eye could see, it being a light night. I continued to despatch 
a man with the like information every half hour until about 10 o'clock, when I 
heard the movement of the troops on the road, challenged, and was answered by 
the adjutant of the 13th infantry, whose voice I well knew, saying "the enemy 
has landed above and below us in great force, and we are on the retreat." 
Having left my horse with Genl. Porter's servant the previous day, I hastened 
there and gave the alarm to you and the general in the very words I had received 
it from Adjutant Eldridge, and while in conversation with yourself and Gen'l 



28 

Porter, neither of you believing the report to be true, a detachment of 
my regiment, Capts. Spraul and Martin's Company passing, I was requested to 
join them, which I did. ****** 

Signed, M. MYERS, 

Late Captain 13fA. U. S. Infantry. 



October 8th. 
iS'fr,— Mr. Prestman will bring you the aid we can give ; he is a gallant young 
man, and I request that he may be allowed to accompany you. 

The God who protects the brave, guard you and give you success I 

Signed, ALEXANDER SMYTH. 

Lieut. Elliott. 



New Port, R. I., August 27, 1834. 
Sir, — On the morning previous to the expedition, Capt. Elliott called at Head 
Quarters, and stated to the general that a detachment of sailors had arrived at 
Buffalo on the last evening, and that he thought he could capture the two British 
vessels, then lying under Fort Erie, if the general would grant him the aid of 
a small detachment of soldiers, to which the general acceded, and directed me 
to detail the number of soldiers required. Capt. Elliott particularly reqiiested 
that no officer of the army might be detailed to accompany the soldiers, who 
would, in virtue of his rank, command any naval officer who might have 
charge of either of the boats. This request was also acceded to, and in obedi- 
ence to orders, I selected from the infantry thirty or forty men. (I forget the 
exact number,) and placed them under the command of Ensign Prestman, of 
the 5th Regiment of Infantry, who it was intended by me should be the only com- 
missioned officer of the army sent with the troops. But on going to the camp of 
the artillery, under the command of Lieut. Col. Scott, to select a few men more, 
I then met Captains Towson and Barker, of that corps, who, on hearing the 
object of my visit, expressed a great desire to go with the expedition, and on 
my stating to them that their rank necessarily prechided them, they, with their 
characteristic solicitude to engage in any perilous adventure, volunteered to go 
in any capacity whatever. Under these circumstances, I consented to take one 
of them, and decided which of the two should go, by hazard, and it fell to the 
lot of Towson to go. * * * * * * 

One of the vessels grounded close on our side and was secured, the other 
grounded on the side of Squaw Island, next to the enemy. Capt. Elliott caused 
the detachment and all the prisoners to be landed, and on the following night 
the vessel which had grounded on Squaw Island, was set on lire by Capt. Cham- 
bers, of the 5th Infantry, and destroyed. * * * * 

Respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

JAMES BANKHEAD. 



29 

The following letters were written in reply to letters addressed to the authors 
by Capt. Elliott :— 

" New Castle, June 27, 1834. 

" Dear Sir, — I have received your letter under date of the 19th of the pre- 
sent month, and regret to learn that you have been assailed by the republica- 
tion of certain offensive charges. The several high commands, and important 
duties repeatedly assigned to you, are full evidence that the government and 
countay place every confidence in your patriotism, talents and valor ; and if I 
may take the liberty of offering a suggestion, it would be that it best comports 
with your dignity and self-respect to rest your cause here. You particularly 
call my attention to the capture of two English vessels under the guns of Fort 
Erie in 1812, and say, ' as you were acting under my imviediate command at 
the time, will yott, be kind enough to state to me, as soon as possible, the matters 
and things relative to that affair ?' 

" The length of time that has elapsed, and the entire change which has taken 
place in my habits and associations, render such reminiscences difficult. I re- 
collect that the attack was made at night, by two boats, in one of which I was 
with you. The British vessels referred to were taken, one of them brought 
over to the American shore, and the other, grounding on an island in the river, 
was destroyed. It appears to me that the facts belonging to the affair speak for 
themselves. The planning and conducting of the enterprise unquestionably 
pertained to you, and by every rule of military service, the credit of it is your 
due. 

" Most respectfully, your ob't serv't, 

" S. W. PRESTMAN." 

" Philadelphia, June 27, 1834. 
" Capt. J. D. Elliott, U. S. N. 

" Dear Sir, — I received your letter of the 19th inst. several days since, but 
have been too much indisposed to reply to it. In allusion to ' langtiage tised 
by the late Commodore Perry, in 1818, relative to your conduct in the capture 
of the British brigs Detroit and Caledonia, from, under the guns of Fort Erie 
in 1812,' you ask for my impressions of that affair. I never heard that any 
one but yourself suggested or directed the expedition. It was undoubtedly ex- 
ecuted with skill and bravery, or it could not have succeeded. As I was acting 
under your immediate command, ^d taking the helm from your cockswain, 
and laying your boat alongside the Detroit, boarding her side by side with you, 
and during the fight and subsequent cannonade with the British forts, I was con- 
stantly near you, I am authorized to, and cheerfully testify, sir, to your bra- 
very on the occasion. 

" If we had been defeated, the odium would have attached to you alone. 
We were successful, and you received all the credit, and I regret that any po- 
litical occurrence of the present day should tend to disparage your exertions in 
the late war. 

" With much respect and esteem, 

" I remain, sir, your ob't serv't, 

" I. ROACH, 
" Late Major U. S. Artillery." 

5 



^ 



I 



